FocusCanada Forums

Rejected: Senate fails to pass Big Three bailout
Dec. 12. 08
Source: Leftlanenews

The United States Senate voted late Thursday evening to reject a $14 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry. The defeat came at 11:10 p.m. ET after heated debate over various alternative proposals and compromises, all of which failed after initial signs of hope. Votes were 52 in favor and 35 against. 13 Senators did not vote. While the number of yeas was greater than nays, falling short of 60 votes makes the gridlock of a filibuster unavoidable, thus a de facto defeat.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the failure of the bill could mean any effort to rescue the Big Three is dead for the rest of the year. If true, this could mean GM and Chrysler might have to file for bankruptcy in the coming days. Earlier, it was reported that GM hired law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LP to handle a possible Chapter 11 filing. Days ago, it was revealed Chrysler retained council of Jones Day for the same reason. It now appears the companies are closer than ever to having to enter bankruptcy protection.

Two hours before the vote, it appeared a bipartisan compromise was at hand. An amendment proposed by Republican Senator Bob Corker called for immediate concessions by the UAW, but negotiations fell apart at the last minute. The plan called for the immediate elimination of the UAW Job Bank, plus significant compensation reductions for all workers.

Reid said he was “terribly disappointed” the alternative proposal never came together. Instead, the Senate had to vote on the original $14 billion proposal passed by the House earlier this week.

Democrats are now calling on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to tap into the $700 billion TARP fund to help the Detroit Three. Some Senators argue the majority 52% vote — though below the filibuster-proof threshold of 60% — should serve as a message to Paulson that he must act. So far, though, Paulson has been unwilling to use funds from the Wall Street rescue program.

I shoulda bought a chrysler... would have been a collector's item in a few years.

I'm now even happier that I drive a Ford.

:)

darkpuppet,Dec 12 2008, 09:24 AM Wrote:I shoulda bought a chrysler... would have been a collector's item in a few years.
[right][snapback]278110[/snapback][/right]

Trash collector, unless it's a Viper

oldeguy,Dec 12 2008, 10:03 AM Wrote:

darkpuppet,Dec 12 2008, 09:24 AM Wrote:I shoulda bought a chrysler... would have been a collector's item in a few years.
[right][snapback]278110[/snapback][/right]

Trash collector, unless it's a Viper
[right][snapback]278113[/snapback][/right]

Viper won't be owned by Chrysler anyway. The car shares no parts with any other Chrysler.

I'm surprised the deal hasn't been done yet to sell it to saleen

ZX5focused,Dec 12 2008, 12:37 PM Wrote:Viper won't be owned by Chrysler anyway. The car shares no parts with any other Chrysler.

I'm surprised the deal hasn't been done yet to sell it to saleen
[right][snapback]278120[/snapback][/right]

I thought the SRT10 Ram had the same engine.

It appears Leftlanenews knows nothing about U.S. politics and how these things never go through right away, just look at how many times they voted on the $$ for the financial idiots before it was approved.

Wait until mid next week, then the fat lady may need to be hauled out.

So CAW is suggesting to toughing up the emission requirements so more people are forced to buy new vehicles hence it would save the auto industry.

what are these guys smoking?

I really hope that Big 3 doesn't get any bail out assistance at all. Right now they need to fail with their current structure and have to rebuild to become more efficient to compete with other companies. The sad thing is that it is happening during a financial meltdown/recession so there is going to be a lot of complaining.

Ford's in the best shape of the three, but they're not out of the woods by far.

I agree that the entire company, at least in Chrysler's case, needs to be overhauled.

Not even going to start on the Canadian guys (trying to not crack on some of our fellow members here), but when Toyota and other US-based manufacturing plants pay far less to their workers and yet their products have better overall quality and reliability... that says something. The fact that a Toyota line worker also makes 20-25 less an hour at least also tells you something - they're not starving!!!

It's called living within your means and something tells me that the US Big 3 employees who barely "live" off 70+ dollars an hour are in for a rude awakening.

NOS2Go4Me,Dec 12 2008, 03:04 PM Wrote:Ford's in the best shape of the three, but they're not out of the woods by far.

I agree that the entire company, at least in Chrysler's case, needs to be overhauled.

Not even going to start on the Canadian guys (trying to not crack on some of our fellow members here), but when Toyota and other US-based manufacturing plants pay far less to their workers and yet their products have better overall quality and reliability... that says something. The fact that a Toyota line worker also makes 20-25 less an hour at least also tells you something - they're not starving!!!

It's called living within your means and something tells me that the US Big 3 employees who barely "live" off 70+ dollars an hour are in for a rude awakening.
[right][snapback]278137[/snapback][/right]

This isn't to disagree with you, but to clarify the info you're relying on ... the $70 + per hour figure as widely reported INCLUDES the cost of providing benefits to retirees - extrapolated back to the hourly rate ... so although it costs GM etc $73 "an hour" to produce a vehicle, that isn't what they pay their active workers ... you're right to the extent that non-union workers seem to be making a decent living and decent benefits without the power of the union, but their hourly rate isn't much different than what active CAW / UAW workers get.

Considering that getting concessions out of the UAW appears to have come completely out of left field I'm not surprised that "things done blow'd up real good"

Unless I was hiding under a rock these past few weeks I had never heard anything the Detriot 3 had not made any pitches to the UAW for concessions and for the government to come riding in at the last minute with these demands and tying them to the funding is unconsonable <_<

NefCanuck

Just to clarify the $70/hour misconception and many others Joe Public has had shoved down their throats by the media, politicians, and many other ignorant sources:
Read all of this and some may be able to tell others they learned something today....

http://www.local707caw.ca/29%20crucial%20T...know%20auto.pdf

Fact 14 is slightly wrong in that the Bank of Canada does not lead money directly to the Automakers. They are the bank of last resort and only really deal with the 5 major chartered banks in Canada.

Fact 16, the fact that the workers 'only' get paid $35 an hour from the point of view of the firm is wrong, the firm will calculate costs on the total hourly wage on their financial statements because that is the true cost of labour. The media is the media, and mostly like go from the firms point of view for most things.

My ass the media has all the facts.

Fact #1 We have a contract. A contract that was settled early here in Canada at the request and insitance of the Big 3. The government approached the UAW for concessions, which they were willing to give, under a new contract that the big 3 were not willing to negotiate now in the US. It failed because no one knows what is going to happen and when.
Fact #2 US automakers pay their employees that are unionized $27.85 US per hour on average. The non-unionized empoyees make $23.80 on average. Where the difference in costs lie is the non-unionized employees don't have retirement cost as of yet because many of the Japanese carmakers force their employees out before the 10 years of service gives them a pension. Also, many of the Japanese automakers haven't been in NA iassmebling product for 10 years and don't have to concrn themselves with pension costs just yet. So it's not really a fair comparison.

Are we at the plant willing to chop our wages, by say 10-15%. I would say yes. Are we willing to keep our wages frozen when the Big 3 start making profits again(as Ford has clearly stated they will be a profitable company come 2011 with or without assistance). f*** NO. We are willing to help but when the cash starts flowing we want our wages reinstated and then some.

i have a bit of input on the import wages compared to domestic. meford stated "Fact #2 US automakers pay their employees that are unionized $27.85 US per hour on average. The non-unionized empoyees make $23.80 on average. Where the difference in costs lie is the non-unionized employees don't have retirement cost as of yet because many of the Japanese carmakers force their employees out before the 10 years of service gives them a pension."

well i live 5 minutes from the toyota plant in cambridge. i know people who work there, they START at $28.50/hr and a year ago started at $30.25. so for the people saying import auto makers pay less and have higher quality, they need to get their facts straightened out. the reason why they can till afford things is because they also have their plants outside N/A which pay in peanuts by comparison and operating costs are far less.

GFXjamie,Dec 13 2008, 01:50 AM Wrote:well i live 5 minutes from the toyota plant in cambridge. i know people who work there, they START at $28.50/hr and a year ago started at $30.25. so for the people saying import auto makers pay less and have higher quality, they need to get their facts straightened out. the reason why they can till afford things is because they also have their plants outside N/A which pay in peanuts by comparison and operating costs are far less.
[right][snapback]278179[/snapback][/right]

How many people do you know that have retired from Toyota?

CanadaSVT,Dec 16 2008, 10:51 AM Wrote:

GFXjamie,Dec 13 2008, 01:50 AM Wrote:well i live 5 minutes from the toyota plant in cambridge. i know people who work there, they START at $28.50/hr and a year ago started at $30.25. so for the people saying import auto makers pay less and have higher quality, they need to get their facts straightened out. the reason why they can till afford things is because they also have their plants outside N/A which pay in peanuts by comparison and operating costs are far less.
[right][snapback]278179[/snapback][/right]

How many people do you know that have retired from Toyota?
[right][snapback]278316[/snapback][/right]

That's the answer I expected!

Even Jeremy Cato of the Globe & Mail understands the $70/hour crock:

Article

sry havent been paying attention to this thread. incase u dont know, i am younger and dont tend to be friends with retiree's. also, the plant here hasnt been around long enough to of had ppl retire. i can see the point you are getting across. but the thing is, import auto makers are paying just as much as domestics. the problem with the domestics is the union /thread